A. On February 11, 2016, the Plaintiff obtained from the Defendant approval for the use on August 26, 2016, the extension of the second floor building on the land B and nine parcels outside the Yasan City, a Class II general residential area.

On September 1, 2016, the Plaintiff is a limited liability company C (hereinafter referred to as “C”) and a part of the area [the Class II neighborhood living facilities [the Class II neighborhood living facilities] 1,000 square meters, and hereinafter referred to as “the leased object of this case”).

[2] On November 28, 2016, the Defendant issued a corrective order to the Plaintiff on the ground that it was an unauthorized change of the use of the leased object on the ground that C engaged in the business on the part of the factory laboratory on the first floor except for the area of the leased object of this case, and that it was an unauthorized change of use (hereinafter “the first corrective order”).

C. C. The Plaintiff did not comply with the details of the first corrective order, and the Defendant issued a corrective order again to the Plaintiff on December 30, 2016 (hereinafter “the second corrective order”).

(2) On January 13, 2017, the second corrective order deadline, the Plaintiff requested extension of the period for performance of corrective measures on the ground that it is impossible to implement corrective measures by January 13, 2017, and the Defendant extended the period for performance of corrective measures by February 10, 2017. C, upon implementing corrective measures on January 31, 2017, re-transfer the display stand to the wall by re-putting the center part of the center part of the first floor in the air room (hereinafter “instant corrective measures”).

In light of the above legal principles, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the transfer of the leased object of this case and by misapprehending the legal principles.

November 2016, 2016. After corrective measures were taken on February 2017

D. On February 13, 2017, the Defendant changed the use of the total of 1,760.29 square meters of the first floor, including the leased object of the instant case, to a sales facility, and used the area subject to the instant non-performance penalty (hereinafter “area subject to the instant non-performance penalty”), and did not comply with the corrective order under Article 70 of the Building Act, Article 80 of the Building Act.